Secret Science Reform Act of 2015

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. I thank Chairman Smith for yielding, and to all my
friends, I miss all of you, but are we having that sense of deejaa vu
all over again? Have you ever started listening to a debate and you are
starting to think: Are we discussing two completely separate pieces of
legislation here?

Mr. Chair, this isn't that complicated. So far, I have got to tell
you, this debate--and this is going to be a little harsh--has been
absolutely intellectually vacuous because we are not saying things that
are true. Let's try one more time--no, Madam Ranking Member, you are
not. So let's try it one more time.

What does the piece of legislation do? It is public policy made by
public data, public data by public policy. Why is that so terrifying to
the left? This concept of, well, there's personal medical records used
for part of this--there are.

That is why this White House, 3 or 4 years ago, did a series of memos
instructing how to do the deidentification of personal data.

If you really object to that, then I am sure you are going to stand
up and start saying that the FDA, the CFPB, all the others that get
personal data, you don't want them to touch that either. Come on, a
little intellectual consistency here, let's try it.

Something I chose not to do when we ran this bill last time--and I am
going to do this time--is that I will submit at a later time into the
Record a handful of memos coming from my office from when this body was controlled by the Democrats and there was a Republican in the White
House.

The Democrats were demanding this of the White House--and a series of
senior Democrat officials--demanding this type of disclosure to make
public policy. I think that would be sort of amusing to put into the
public record, so folks can see how duplicitous this argument has
started to become.

Now, back to sort of an underlying principle that I embraced--and I
hope all those who actually are not at war with science and want to
embrace the complete aggregation of information--is that we need to
walk away from this arrogance that there is a small subset in our
society that absolutely knows everything.

Because the fact of the matter is you put up a study today and a
handful of smart folks at Kennedy's--do you represent MIT? Sorry. That
is where all the really smart kids are, right?

But people like Arizona State, the next smartest school in the
Nation, why can't they take that data set and bounce it up against
studies they are doing? Why can't an industry group, why can't an
environmental group, why can't an academic group, why can't someone who
just really likes statistics?

What you are basically saying is all information, all knowledge, is
housed in a tiny population and the rest of the world be damned.

There is a crowdsourcing concept of refining, and here is where I am
fascinated that the left hasn't caught on. This bill, this piece of
legislation may come back to us and say: EPA, you are actually not
doing enough.

It could actually come back and say: When we make the data public,
when we bounce it up against other data sources, when we do other
latitudinal studies, we may find we are not doing enough. We may find
there is a much better way to do a regulation set.

I would think, actually, in the modern world, where we know
information is providing us so many opportunities, why aren't we
embracing that? Why has that become partisan?

There are actually also a couple of other things that have been said
from behind the microphone across the aisle that we need to, one more
time, restate honestly.

What if a data set is provided by industry?

One of the biggest complaints in the past said, Well, if a Republican
President had a Republican EPA and they used industry data to set up a
reg--guess what? That falls under this same piece of legislation. That
also is disclosed. All data that is used to create public policy is
public.

Why does this terrify the left so much, public policy by public data
and public data by public policy, and then the opportunity for everyone
who takes an interest in this to be able to refine it and make it
better and make it more efficient and more healthy for our families,
for our environment, for our economy, instead of a small, arrogant
population controlling all knowledge and all information?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. SCHWEIKERT. Mr. Speaker, to the gentleman from Hawaii, whom I
have not actually had the chance to make friends with yet, you are
actually hitting on one really good point: If there is data being used
by bad actors, shouldn't we all know it?

The way the EPA operates right now with their keeping their data sets
secret, none of you are going to get to know that. That is actually
what this piece of legislation fixes. If there is going to be data of
groups that are bad actors--industries that you consider dodgy--
wouldn't it be a wonderful thing to have that data available for
everyone, whether you be on the right or whether you be on the left, so
it can be refined by sunshine? so it can be reviewed and meshed up
against other data sets?

If you believe that making information public refines it, if you
believe public policy should be made by public data and public data
should be available in the making of public policy, you like this piece
of legislation.

What is so fascinating in the debate we have had this time and last
year is that I have a number of memos, demand letters, threats of
subpoenas from when the left in this body was in both the majority and
the minority, but there was a Republican President who was demanding
this type of legislation. Let's try something new around here: a little
bit of intellectual consistency.

Do you believe the public--the researchers, the scientists, those who
are academics, those who just have an interest in the subject area--
should have the right to touch the data, to model it, to stress it, to
put it up against other data sets and see if we are doing what is best
for our environment? Are we doing it the best way? Is there a better
way? Is there a more efficient way? Is there a more cost-effective way?
That is what this bill accomplishes, and I have no idea why my brothers
and sisters on the left are so fearful of that.

As I yield back, I beg all of my fellow Members here to vote ``yes''
on this legislation but to vote ``no'' on this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source